Fact: Even Gandhi Opposed Gun Bans

Anthony Gucciardi
by
March 17th, 2013
Updated 04/08/2013 at 8:44 pm

In a major reality blast to those who tote gun bans in the name of Mahatma Gandhi and other famous leaders, it is actually a little-known fact that Gandhi himself was openly opposed to gun bans. In fact, he proclaimed a nationwide gun disarmament to be the ‘blackest’ deed of the entire British ruling period in India.

If you haven’t heard about this information, I am not surprised. In the past, merely posting Gandhi’s exact quote on this subject without any additional information has led to major Facebook accounts with hundreds of thousands of fans to be swiftly banned. The first of which was the Facebook page of Mike Adam’s NaturalNews, who shared an image of Gandhi’s quote verbatim only to receive the ban hammer from Facebook administrators. So watch out, this information might get you clubbed from the largest social media network in the world for even sharing it.

gandhi gun banBut what is this quote exactly and did Gandhi really write it? Well, the quote comes from an autobiography by Gandhi, entitled “Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography.” On page 446, you will find this very serious quote regarding the way in which British rulers disarmed the entire population that Gandhi had crusaded for. Ultimately, this action led to the governmental ability to control this populace due to their inability to defend themselves. Gandhi writes:

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

Yes, this is really Gandhi saying this. He actually studied the history on this issue and knew that disarming the people is not the right way to deal with crime, or military enemies — both foreign and domestic.

And it’s important to understand why Gandhi is saying this. It’s not because he is some warmonger who felt the need to incite unnecessary violence. In fact Gandhi is most well known for being an activist for peaceful and intellectual revolution. So why would an individual who many would consider a prominent symbol of peace say that the absolute blackest, most nefarious deed of the very British rule that he fought against was to disarm the public? Or how about how he talks about the bravery of self-defense?

It’s a matter of examining history and even modern day statistics.

Gandhi Knew Guns in the Hands of Citizens Made the Nation Safer

Gandhi knew something that has been lost in modern day society due to what’s known as normalcy bias, which is prevalent in most first world nations. Normalcy bias is, essentially, the assumption that nothing drastically bad will ever happen — a mindset brought upon thanks to a cushy lifestyle. Commonly seen in places like the United States, living circumstances condition an individual into assuming that everything will continue to be just fine. Gandhi knew about the effects of widespread normalcy bias.

Gandhi also knew that when law-abiding citizens are stripped of their right to carry a weapon that they become defenseless, and ruthless tyrants can take over. Sound familiar? That’s right, Gandhi’s principals here echo the very principals in which the Constitution was constructed on. Gandhi had highlighted the British ban on firearms an absolute tragedy and warned against its implications just as the founding fathers of the United States escaped such regulation and formulated a plan to prevent it here in the distant future.

Not the same Gandhi you know? Gandhi has actually advocated the use of firearms in defense time and time again. Here we see it once more:

“Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor,” Gandhi wrote in his work The Doctrine of the Sword.

He continues to break down how self-defense is actually rooted in bravery:

“When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”

But is history really all we have to go on? A major argument that, despite ignoring the history and pretending that we live in a perfect world thanks once again to overarching normalcy bias, is that our modern society is no longer applicable to these rules once held as the supreme law of the land by the creators of the Constitution.

As it turns out, Gandhi was way ahead of his time on the subject as well, even when it pertains to self defense and the relationship between guns and crime levels.

It’s all detailed heavily in an article I believe to be one of the most information on the issue entitled A Brief and Bloody History of Gun Control, but as it turns full-scale gun bans actually do not seem to prevent crime but enhance it. We’ve even seen many mass shootings occur specifically inside ‘gun free’ zones, with Batman shooter James Holmes even travelling to the one movie theater in the area that did not allow for law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons while viewing the film.

In cities like Chicago, where extreme gun bans went into effect with the written goal of ‘stopping crime’, we actually see a dramatic spike in crimes committed with the very banned guns themselves. We can actually examine data from law enforcement and utilize a visual example to analyze the statistics. Written into law back in 1982, Chicago’s murder rate via handgun absolutely went haywire following the ban. Meanwhile, the United States as a whole actually saw a considerable and steady decline in murder rates as the sale of guns increased.

Two separate figures that do not equal causation? Sure, but let’s look at this visual to look at how many murders were taking place with banned weapons before and after the gun ban went into effect:

chicago handgun murder chart

After the handgun ban took place in the city, we see crime spike by 40%. What’s even more concerning, is that 96% of the firearm murders in the city were from handguns. You know, the banned handguns that the city declared as illegal years ago. If this surprises you, it shouldn’t. Who do you think is going to follow the gun ban legislation, hardened criminals who intend to commit serious crimes? No. Those who follow the ruling are law-abiding citizens who would usually be using the handguns for self defense through concealed carry licenses that require not only proven credentials but training.

But as it turns out, criminals were getting a hold of the handguns illegally and firing on citizens who could not defend themselves. Sure, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says to defend yourself with scissors from an armed gunmen, but in the real world when criminals know you don’t have a firearm then you don’t stand a chance. On the flip side, however, we know that studies reveal around 40% of criminals reported not committing a crime due to the fear that the victim had a firearm.

Take that same street-level criminal from the study, change the label to ‘runaway government’, and you have Gandhi’s situation. Throughout history a well-armed public has been essential to maintaining order on all levels, just as Gandhi understands. Just because normalcy bias clouds the judgement of modern day Twinkie eaters who literally don’t know what the Fourth of July means doesn’t make history any different, nor does it change what Gandhi wrote in his autobiography many years ago.

Share Button

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Second Amendment

Anthony Gucciardi

About the Author ()

Google Plus Profile Anthony Gucciardi is the creator of Storyleak, accomplished writer, producer, and seeker of truth. His articles have been read by millions worldwide and are routinely featured on major alternative news websites like the infamous Drudge Report, Infowars, NaturalNews, G Edward Griffin's Reality Zone, and many others. He is also a founding member of the third largest alternative health site in the world, NaturalSociety.com.

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. the libs will not like this

    • boygirlboygirl says:

      What your intrepid blogger fails to mention in the process of telling us "what Gandhi "knew" (how arrogant do you have to be to speak on behalf of Gandhi?) is that if you read the full quote ***and*** the context you learn that Ghandi had not yet become the person we know from the history books who advocated non-violence. At the time of the quote, he opposed a law that made it legal for the British to carry guns in India but illegal for Indians to do so. He advocated its repeal for one reason: because he wanted Indians to learn how to use weapons so they could fight with Britain in WWI as a way to prove themselves worthy of British citizenship. He was not, at this point, advocating for Indian independence and hoping to use guns to overthrow a tyrannical government. At the time, he thought if Indians fought for Britain they’d be kinder to them and allow them more freedoms within their colonial empire. Obviously, it didn't work and Gandhi’s thinking changed. It changed so much that when he initiated a campaign for full independence from the British Empire, he advocated only nonviolent means of resistance. Watch out for random quotes without context. And be skeptical of people who feel like they can speak for the dead.

  2. Bob Marshall says:

    Gaddafi had close and long standing economic ties to Obama, Obama's pastor for twenty years, Jeremiah Wright, the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Kenyan prime Minister Raila Odinga. in 1984, Wright accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet Gaddafi. One year later, Gaddafi gave $5,000,000 to Farrakhan for the Nation of Islam's Million Man march.n 1991. An event attended by both Obama and Wright. In a 1995 interview with the Chicago reader, Obama acknowledged he took time off from his first political campaign to participate in the Million Man March. " What i saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he told the Reader. obama has close ties to Odinga, a member of his father's Luo tribe whose wealth traces back to oil revenue set up by Gaddafi in Libya and the Al-Bakri Group in Saudi Arabia. In 2008, an internal funding memo smuggled out of Odinga's campaign showed a $1,000,000 contribution to the Obama campaign from one of Gaddafi sons, Serif-Al-Islam Gaddafi. In 2010 Obama earmarked $400,000 of taxpayer funds for two Libyan charities run by Gaddafi children. One charity bankrolled the greek registered cargo ship that tried to run the Israeli blockade in July 2010. the flotilla campaign was master mined by Obama's Chicago neighbors, and colleagues, former weather Underground bombers Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Obama could be seen in a picture at the group Summit of Eight shaking hands with Gaddafi. On March 9, 2011, Gaddafi sent a message to Obama calling him"our Son" and asking for Obama to defend his decision to send the military to attack the rebels seeking to overthrow him. On Oct. 20, 2011, after Gaddafi had been killed, Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to announce, "The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted." i am sure Gaddafi was surprised when Obama turned on him. especially since, in his book, Audacity of Hope, " I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

  3. Pootna says:

    But…..India is a safer country today because of its strict gun laws, and, besides, the British are not there despite the disarmament of the citizens (thanks to the non-violent movement, which proved to be much more powerful that a militia would have been)

    • Johnny says:

      On what do you base this assertion, "India is a safer country today because of its strict gun laws"? This is merely an article of faith in the utility of civilian disarmament. Your statements are classic examples of the fallacy of appeal to consequences of belief.

  4. George says:

    If it's so safe in India why are crimes against women steadily increasing year after year? Stricter gun laws DOES NOT make it safer for the citizenry of any nation. If the women who are constantly attacked had guns or any weapon to protect themselves you will see those crime rates drop.

  5. Oh dear says:

    How strange to misquote yet again: The fact was he opposed a particular gun control law which took guns out of Indian residents and allowed Europeans to carry guns freely. Understandably dissatisfied with the inequality. When provoked physically Ghandi most certainly was not the man to put up a fight so unsure what everyone thinks he expected bystanders, as that is what we are talking about here, to do with a gun. He promoted passive defiance but not weakness, do not confuse the two, check the bible on this please. Arming a nation to protect herself sounds more like forming an army rather than a militia. This just reads as the brain washing that America has sadly grown so used to recently. Very sad.

    • commenter says:

      Lu 22:36 But now, said he, let him that has a purse, take it, and likewise his bag; and let him who has no sword, sell his mantle, and buy one;
      Lu 22:38 They said, Master, here are two swords. He replied, It is enough.
      This is Jesus saying protect yourself with a sword. Sword or gun? Does it matter? You need to read your Bible. No Jesus is not about violence but he is not stupid either. But being stupid is the call of the day it seems. Here is another one where God condoned violence for what is right when it was not government like the wars or the captial punishment of the Old Testament. The Bible never says to stand around and act stupid while evil is going on.

      Numbers 25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
      Numbers 25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
      Numbers 25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
      Nu 25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
      10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
      11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
      12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
      13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

      The Bible never says to stand around and act stupid while evil is going on. I am not saying we should go out and kill someone like Phinehas. The old Testament times and now are two different kind of times when there was complete lawlessness then but now we have a more stable government to take care of capital punishment. But to lay down the sword and not protect you and your family is ridiculous.

  6. Bevin Chu says:

    Wonderful article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *